If Your Daughter Has Been Rape At Halliburton, She May Have to Arbitrate Her Rape

It's in our nature as Americans to insist upon "fair play." From politics to the pulpit, Americans want "fair play," especially when it comes to justice.

But now-a-days, Big Business doesn't "play fair;" they want a "stacked deck." They want a sure thing, a winning hand, especially when it comes to justice. But, this can be difficult to get when juries call the shots. So, how does Big Business stack the deck when it comes to justice? It's easy! Simply let an indifferent conservative court force arbitration.

The conservative indifferent U.S. Supreme Court has expanded a 1925 law to a level no member of Congress ever thought possible. They have allowed Big Business to create corporate owned kangaroo courts.

Corporate-owned companies like the National Arbitration Forum prostitute justice by limiting the liability of Big Business to insure that corporate dirty linen stays out of public courtrooms, hidden in the dark world of back room deals called mandatory arbitration.

Mandatory arbitration hides all manner of financial chicanery, and all manner of abuse of workers. Including rape! Just ask Jamie Jones.

Jamie Leigh Jones was 19 and working for Halliburton/KBR in Houston when she volunteered to go to Iraq. Four days after she arrived, she was drugged and gang-raped. Her enemy wasn't rebel militias, but thugs employed by KBR. Jamie sued. But KBR said, "No way the public hears these stories in court. This goes to arbitration."

Ah, justice is a fickle thing...

John Vail, Op-Ed, National Law Journal, 8-4- 08

Trade Secrets Used To Block Disclosure Of Safety Concern

It’s hard to imagine anything standing in the way of the public’s right to know when a corporation endangers the health and safety of a community. Yet, it happens every day under the guise of protecting a corporation’s “trade secret.”

Here’s a case in point.

California officials refuse to disclose the ingredients of a chemical pesticide sprayed over fields, homes, businesses and schools in Northern California. California say it can’t identify the “inactive ingredients” of the pesticide without violating laws “governing corporate trade secrets.”

Spraying of the pesticide was suspended after residents complained that the initial application caused asthma-like symptoms, burning eyes, rashes and stomach pains. This problem raises a basic question: How can any corporation have a right keep a safety hazard a secret? Read -- Paul Pringle, LA Times 10/18/2007 Read Article: LA Times

FDA Convenes on Cold Drugs for Youngsters

A group of pediatricians told FDA advisers that cold and cough medicines should not be given to children under six years old.

An FDA panel is currently considering a petition that seeks government recognition that the medicines are ineffective and unsafe for children under six years of age.

Meanwhile, drug makers stopped the sale of over-the-counter medicines for toddlers citing potential for overdoses.

See, Andrew Bridges, LA Times 10/18/2007 Read Article: LA Times

The Star Chamber: Conservative La. Fed. Judge Dismisses Insurance Whistleblower Suit

Conservatives have purged the judicial system of judges who are willing to protect the rights of the middles class and working families. Corporate America owns the federal judiciary. Terrible judicial decisions are to be expected. But, this really hurt Louisiana!

Here’s what happened.

Recently, U.S. District Judge Peter Beer, an icon of Louisiana conservatism, dismissed a lawsuit filed by several former insurance adjusters who were prepared to testify that a number of major private insurance companies systematically over-billed the National Flood Insurance program by shifting their expenses over to the federal flood program.

Judge Beer said the suit could be continued under a “different whistleblower lawsuit in Mississippi” that deals with denial of hurricane wind claims and possible fraud against the federal flood program.

The problem is that the “cheating” occurred in Louisiana!

That didn’t deter Judge Beer. He reasoned that the rules of the False Claims Act provide that a whistleblower lawsuit can't proceed if another on the same subject has already been filed. The Mississippi lawsuit was unsealed and became public knowledge after the Louisiana lawsuit had been filed.

We need a congressional investigation into the over billing of the National Flood Insurance Program, with demands to know why the U.S. Department of Justice and Homeland Security are not pursuing the matter. Read: Rebecca Mowbray, New Orleans Times-Picayune La. whistleblower suit dismissed

HMO, Kaiser Permanente, Doctor Accused of Negligence

A doctor accused of gross negligence in the deaths of at least 2 children he helped deliver remains on the job with the nation’s largest HMO.

Beginning in 2002, “doctors and nurses repeatedly” complained to officials at Kaiser Permanente that Hamid Safari posed potential risks to patients under his care.

How did Kaiser over the years respond? This year, Kaiser finally restricted Safari’s duties.

It’s reported that California regulators are seeking to revoke or suspend Safari’s license and have fined Kaiser $3 million for its handling of physician errors throughout the state.

Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein, LA Times 10/16/2007Read Article: LA Times

Good guys win! Allstate to Reimburse Policyholders for Medical Claims

Allstate Insurance Co. has agreed to reimburse thousands of Washington state drivers involved in a class action lawsuit against the company.

Allstate uses its medical bill review practices to arbitrarily limit payments for legitimate medical expenses incurred by policyholders.

The settlement covers an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 drivers who filed claims under personal-injury protection or Medpay coverage.

Phuong Cat Le, Seattle Post-Intelligencer 10/15/2007 Read Article: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Drug Maker to Block Sale of Low Cost Cancer Drug

The good and bad of money…money…. money!

Pharmaceutical giant Genetech makes Avastin, a cancer drug that is also used to treat macular degeneration, which causes blindness in the elderly. Genetech also makes Lucentis, a drug used to treat macular degeneration. And, that’s good!

But, here’s the problem: Retinal specialists prefer to use Avastin because of its cheaper, about $50 a dose, while Lucentis costs about $2000 a dose. And, that’s good!

If it keeps making Avastin, Genetech will lose $1950 per dose. So, Genetech has told retinal specialists that it not going to produce Avastin, because Lucentis is “really-really-no-joke-pinky-swear” better than Avastin. And, that’s bad!

Elderly folks can’t afford a drug that cost $2000 a dose to prevent blindness, so they’ll go blind. And, that’s bad!

Andrew Pollack, The New York Times 10/12/2007 Read Article: The New York Times

National Arbitration Forum. Rent-A-Judge! How Arbitration Is Undermining Justice for Consumers

Troy Cornock is a regular guy, not unlike you and me. Like most us, Troy had never heard of the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). One day, Troy received a letter from NAF saying he owed money on a credit card.

Here's the problem: Troy never signed a credit card agreement, and Troy's ex-wife had made all of the charges. Ex-spouses are known to do that. Yet, the NAF ordered Troy to pay more than $9,000 anyway.

Troy’s story is just a small example of how “mandatory arbitration clauses” have pervaded the consumer landscape and prevented customers from getting their day in court. Rent-A-Judge and get the decision you want!

Gary Weiss, Forbes 10/11/2007 Read Article: Forbes

Class Action Against Microsoft, Best Buy to Proceed

They got caught! They got caught!

The Supreme Court, conservative bent notwithstanding, upheld a ruling Monday that will allow a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. and Best Buy Co. to go forward.

The federal class action lawsuit involves thousands of consumers, just like you and me, that were cheated when Microsoft Corp. and Best Buy Co. surreptitiously charged them for services they did not want.

Microsoft Corp. and Best Buy Co. had asked the Supremes to dismiss the lawsuit which alleges violation of racketeering laws.

AP, LA Times 10/16/2007 Read Article: LA Times

The Rule of Law: Fact or Fiction? Inns of Court and The Federalist Society

When I began this piece, I wasn’t sure how much could be reasonably presented in a concise statement of the nature of the problem: is the rule of law fact or fiction?

For sure, America prides itself as a nation that lives by “the rule of law.” Law exist everywhere: statutes, ordinances, and judicial decisions. If there's a problem with the “rule of law,” the problem must arise where laws are made. Right?

Since most, if not all, forms of American government (local, state, and national) reflect a “divisions of power,” legislatures must be the source of the problem. But that's not the case. Legislatures merely reflect the biases of the generation in power. Rarely are the laws of a previous generation abrogated to make way for the laws of the new generation. Often, opposing principles are left standing without regard for the contradiction.

Where else then? The courts?

For sure, whoever controls the courts will control the interpretation of the law. But, legal hermeneutics originates elsewhere. It starts long before the appointment or election of judges. It begins with lawyers. Then it must be in our law schools. Wrong! Law schools rarely, if ever, educate in legal theory. No, it takes place in think tanks that, for the most part, go unnoticed because they're obscure. Let’s look at two.

Inns of Court

The Inns of Court began in England as a professional association to one of which every English barrister must belong. The English Inns of Court have supervisory and disciplinary functions over their members. Beginning in the late 1970s, U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger led a movement to create U.S. Inns of Court. Burger, a Republican, was an Eisenhower appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court and an elitist.

Today, U.S. Inns of Court flourish. In many instances U.S. Inns of Court have denigrated into a place where judges and lawyers forge friendships that often reflect an underlying bias against “the rule of law.” It's the place where the young lawyer and would-be judge learns how to "think." There are literally dozens of such U.S. Inns of Court where membership is by invitation only.

The Federalist Society

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies was founded in the early 1980s as a "conservative legal fellowship" attempting to mold judicial practice in the U.S. Notable members of The Federalist Society are Robert H. Bork, Orrin G. Hatch, Donald Paul Hodel, Edwin Meese, John Stewart Bryan,III, Chairman, President/C.E.O. Media General Cable, Joseph Cannon, C.E.O./Chairman, Geneva Steel, R. Crosby Kemper, III, President, United Missouri Bank, John G. Medlin, Jr., Chairman, Wachovia Corporation, Nicholas John Stathis, Vice President, Orpheon, Inc., Paul S. Stevens, General Counsel, Investment Company Institute, Robert L. Strickland, Chairman, Lowe's Companies, Inc., Kenneth Starr, U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The purpose of The Federalist Society is to proselytize, indoctrinate, and groom lawyers to become judges who “think right.”

Friends in high places: Conservative Republican Supreme Court protects corporate greed.

Several recent decisions from the conservative Republican Supreme Court have accomplished what slick Dick Cheney and lobbyist Jack Abramoff were unable to do.

Dominated by the Far-Fetched Four, i.e. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, the conservative Republican Supreme Court has handed down decision after decision that hurt working families who try to protect themselves against corporation greed.

The Far-Fetched Four and their conservative compatriots have undermined public safety and have protected and promoted corporate greed by throwing out verdicts against tobacco companies and automakers and shielded various industries from various forms of liability.

How can anyone justify being "conservative" with justice?

David G. Savage, LA Times 06/21/2007 Read Article: LA Times